Mark Begich on Abortion

Democratic Jr Senator

No new regulations on women's access to medical care

The Parnell/Treadwell Administration is trying to restrict Alaska women's access to medical care. New regulations are set to make it harder for women and their doctors to make medical decisions.
These new regulations are an unprecedented intrusion into a women's medical privacy.

I stand with the women of Alaska. The state legislative counsel has already said the proposed regulations may be unconstitutional.
This is just another attempt to circumvent women's rights and we can't let it stand. Medical decisions should be left between patients, their families, and their doctors--not politicians in Juneau or Washington, D.C.

The women of
Alaska should not be forced to make decisions about their health based on government regulations. And I need you to let Alaska's state administration know you stand with us: Add your voice to mine right now.

Accepts contributions from abortion-rights group NARAL

The details of Begich’s and Stevens’ campaign contribution and spending reports were released Tuesday. Begich’s report shows Alaska donors as well as money from several unions, the abortion-rights group NARAL, the American Association for
Justice lawyers group and political action committees of Senate Democrats. Begich also picked up a lot of small donations via the Internet through the ActBlue Democratic political action committee.

Source: By Sean Cockerham in Anchorage Daily News
, Jul 16, 2008

Mayor’s Charity Ball donated $25K to Planned Parenthood

Mayor Mark Begich of Anchorage donated $25,000 to Planned Parenthood of Alaska following an annual city fundraising event.

Money raised by the 2003 Mayor’s Charity Ball was divided among four charities. This year, those randomly selected were the
Anchorage Concert Chorus, the Imaginarium, the Covenant House of Alaska, and Planned Parenthood of America, the nation’s largest abortion business. Each received one quarter of the more than $100,000 raised.

Begich included Planned
Parenthood when he remarked that the fundraiser would benefit “four very worthy charities,” despite the fact that Planned Parenthood already receives grants from the state and federal governments.

In previous years, pro-life organizations had benefited from the annual ball, such as the Pregnancy Support Services crisis pregnancy in 1998 and both Catholic and Lutheran Social Services.

Voted NO on restricting UN funding for population control policies.

Congressional Summary:To require that amounts appropriated for the United Nations Population Fund are not used by organizations which support coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. WICKER (R-MS): This amendment with one issue and one issue only--whether US taxpayer dollars will be provided to help fund coercive population control policies, such as China's one-child policy--a policy that relies on coerced abortion and forced sterilization. Specifically, this pro-child, pro-family, pro-woman amendment would restore the Kemp-Kasten antipopulation control provision, which has been a fundamental part of our foreign policy for almost a quarter century. As it has always done, Kemp-Kasten allows the President to certify that funds are not used for coercive family practices. My amendment is needed because the underlying bill reverses this longstanding provision.

Sen. COBURN (R-OK): I stand in the corner of pro-life. But I want to debate this issue as if I were pro-choice. If we believe that women have a right to choose, why in the world would we send money to UNFP that is going to take that right away from women in other countries? You can't be on both sides of this issue. Either you believe in a woman's right to choose or you do not. Or you only believe in a woman's right to choose in America, and because the Chinese have too many people, you don't think that same human right ought to be given to women in China. There is no question that UNFP will mix this money, and we will fund forced abortions in China. [Without this amendment] American taxpayer dollars are going to go to China to enforce coercive abortion against the will of women and force sterilization against the will of women in China.

Let military perform abortions in cases of rape or incest.

Begich signed MARCH for Military Women Act

Military Access to Reproductive Care and Health for Military Women Act or the MARCH for Military Women Act - Amends the prohibition on using funds available to the Department of Defense (DOD) to perform abortions by adding an exception for cases where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. (Current law provides an exception only where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term.) Repeals a statutory restriction on using a medical treatment facility or other facility of the DOD to perform an abortion.

Currently, the health coverage U.S. servicewomen have doesn't cover abortion, even in the case of rape or incest. U.S. servicewomen are also not permitted to use their own money to pay for an abortion at a military hospital. Military women stationed abroad are most affected by this regulation, as they would be forced to seek abortion services at foreign hospitals, which may be unsafe, or request permission from a supervisor to leave the country, which forces them to divulge that they are seeking an abortion. Most other American women who receive health care from the government but are not in the service can receive abortions in the case of rape, incest, or to the save the life of the mother. The MARCH for Military Women Act would give servicewomen coverage for abortion in the case of rape or incest and allow them to use their own funds for abortion at a U.S. military facility. NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood are among many organizations that support this legislation.

a requirement that, prior to obtaining an abortion, a woman make medically unnecessary visits to the provider of abortion services or to any individual or entity that does not provide such services;

a prohibition or ban prior to fetal viability

Opponent's argument against (Live Action News):
This is Roe v. Wade on steroids. The bill is problematic from the very beginning. Its first finding addresses "women's ability to participate equally"; many have rejected this claim that women need abortion in order to be equal to men, or that they need to be like men at all. The sponsors of this pro-abortion bill also seem to feel that pro-life bills have had their time in this country, and that we must now turn back to abortion. The bill also demonstrates that its proponents have likely not even bothered attempting to understand the laws they are seeking to undo, considering that such laws are in place to regulate abortion in order to make it safer. Those who feel that abortion is best left up for the states to decide will also find this bill problematic with its overreach. Sadly, the bill also uses the Fourteenth Amendment to justify abortion, as the Supreme Court did, even though in actuality it would make much more sense to protect the lives of unborn Americans.